Who wants war?
Jun. 10th, 2003 07:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
purpletigronAttributed to Herman Goering, speaking to Gustave Gilbert (taken from Gilbert's journal: he was "a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail.") apparently.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-06-10 01:05 am (UTC)Not approximate, no...
Date: 2003-06-10 01:14 am (UTC)"The quote offered above was part of a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess."
no subject
Date: 2003-06-10 11:29 am (UTC)Lots of wars are popular in the beginning ... both the British and the Germans went willingly to fight WWI. The long-standing quarrel over whether Alsace and Lorraine should be French or German was quite enough to trigger war after war after war, until it was finally decided in 1945 that they would remain French.
Using the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an illustration of anything is always risky, but at this present moment it seems like both sides' leaders are trying to make small peaceful steps against the wishes of their electorates.
Politics of war
Date: 2003-06-10 11:42 am (UTC)A quote isn't something which is provable: I found it thought-provoking.
Lots of wars are popular in the beginning
Is it easier to avoid an unpopular war in the first place...
both sides' leaders are trying to make small peaceful steps against the wishes of their electorates.
... or to stop an unpopular war once the fighting has begun?
Re: Politics of war
Date: 2003-06-10 11:57 am (UTC)I think that people tend to like quotes in a direct ratio to how much they agree with the views implicit in the quotes ;)
It's much easier to stop any war before it starts - once it has begun both sides will have more and more ammunition to support the case that the other side are evil/babykillers/wrong in other ways and people will be more emotionally and politically committed to it.
But I wasn't talking about unpopular wars. You have some chance to stop one of those. If there's a big majority of people and politicians in favour of war, then how can you stop it? What logic can oppose such a majority?
Re: Politics of war
Date: 2003-06-10 12:12 pm (UTC)If I could have any superpower, I would seriously consider this: whenever anyone makes a demonstrably false statement on TV or radio, I appear in a flash and confront them with the truth!
I disagree with the "a quote can't be disproven"
What I meant was that, unless the person didn't actually say what is attributed to them, a quote is a quote is what they said. It's interesting in it's own right as what a certain person said at a certain time. The statement may be true or false or unprovable, but it's still the quote.
I've often gained the impression that people consider that the German population between the World Wars was somehow especially vulerable to the Nazis. This quote suggests the idea that Nazis could have lead any people to war, even in different circumstances. That's thought-provoking...
It's much easier to stop any war before it starts
The question raised is about unpopular wars: Can the leaders manipulate public opinion to create popular support with no foundation in reality? Can the people stop a war which the leaders are committed to starting?
Re: Politics of war
Date: 2003-06-10 12:32 pm (UTC)I think I see a problem here - I'm disagreeing with the basic premise of the quote. I don't think that all wars are necessarily unpopular with the general public, as Goering was seeming to me to say. Hence we seem to have been arguing past each other.
I think that Germany was in such an economic mess that people were willing to believe almost anything if they thought it would improve their personal situation. The Jews were a handy scapegoat for all of this.
So to get back to the question that you asked (not the question I originally answered): maybe. It probably depends on petty things like where in the electoral cycle you are, and whether you have some form of "initiative" system where people can mandate the Government to do something, or a "recall" system (if you can get X signatures, then you can request special elections to replace representatives).
In the UK we have no initiative or recall system. Maybe if you have some spectacular majority of people willing to go to the limit of civil disobedience, and (even better) the military on your side, then you could stop it.
But short of rebellion there isn't a constitutional way to stop a determined Government with a Commons majority without the Queen calling new elections. This has happened in the 1970s in Australia, but in that case the (Australian) Government was stalemated in (their) Parliament.
That of course would set off a constitutional crisis all of its own, but I guess that preparations for war would halt during the election campaign.
Re: Politics of war
Date: 2003-06-10 12:57 pm (UTC)That's what I meant with the terms `demonstrable' and `truth' in my phrasing, but I could have made myself a little more clear. Obviously, my superpower would include amazingly clarity :-)
I don't think that all wars are necessarily unpopular with the general public
I was reading it to apply to `wars like the current one' (WWII) ... as you pointed out, there are major differences as compared to the Palestine-Israel conflict. Even so, I don't think that Goering's statement is an unreasonable exaggeration - mostly, the general population do not want to send their sons (and some of their daughters) off to be slaughted unless they believe that there is a major threat to their own country (e.g. the Battle of Britain?). It is the strength of the belief, not the reality of the threat, which will determine their enthusiasm?
Maybe if you have some spectacular majority of people willing to go to the limit of civil disobedience
Two million people marching through London seemed reasonably spectacular at the time...
That of course would set off a constitutional crisis all of its own, but I guess that preparations for war would halt during the election campaign.
I guess that an election campaign might be suspended on the grounds that preparations for war were already too far advanced...
So, I think we are agreeing on this one - not much that could be done :-(
Re: Politics of war
Date: 2003-06-10 01:58 pm (UTC)The military hold their oaths from the Queen, not the Government. If the Queen has called for new elections, then they could refuse to go to war until the new Government has been formed. I don't think that we'd go to war if we didn't actually have an operative Government ...
Maybe a general strike might have worked - if *everyone* downed tools/pencils/PDAs and walked out on one designated day, then the Government might have taken that seriously.
What mechanism would you think appropriate to let the public force the Government's hand? eg some way to call a national referendum, to force MPs to stand for election again. If you set the threshold too high it becomes meaningless, if it's too low we just end up fighting by-elections every other week ... but maybe there's a happy medium.
The Chartists called for annual elections. Maybe that was the answer (or maybe not?).